Originally posted by William Saturn, who also writes for IPR, at the Saturnalian:
The work alters Mount Rushmore to feature the top four third party and independent candidates from the past 25 years.
1. Ross Perot – Texas billionaire who ran two self-financed campaigns for president in 1992 and 1996. In 1992, as an independent, he participated in the official presidential debate against President George H.W. Bush and then-Democratic Party nominee Bill Clinton. Ultimately, he received 18.9% of the popular vote in that election, the most a third party or independent presidential candidate has received since. In 1996, as nominee of the newly created Reform Party, he received 8.4% of the popular vote.
2. Ron Paul – former Republican congressman who ran as the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in the 1988 presidential election. He later returned to Congress as a Republican, but often defied party leadership to promote libertarian ideas. His 2008 presidential campaign for the Republican Party nomination introduced many young people to libertarianism. During that year’s general election, loyal supporters placed him on the ballots of Louisiana and Montana, where he received 0.48% and 2.17% of the popular vote, respectively.
3. Ralph Nader – consumer advocate who officially ran four times as a third party and independent candidate for president in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. His most successful run came in 2000, when he received 2.74% of the popular vote as the nominee of the Green Party.
4. Jesse Ventura – former professional wrestler elected Governor of Minnesota in 1998 with 36.99% of the popular vote as the nominee of the Reform Party. He later joined the Independence Party of Minnesota after paleoconservative Pat Buchanan took over the Reform Party in 2000. Since his gubernatorial term expired in 2003, he has been mentioned as a potential independent or third party presidential candidate, most recently as a possible candidate for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential nomination.
This refers to a since deleted comment which Vermin aka nazi troll posted pretending to be Austin, not Austin’s comment from 9:01 pm yesterday, which was the real Austin. The sequence of comments as they now stand does not make it clear.
Been There, Done That….
You should relax and take it easy. 🙂
You aren’t excused. You explicitly said libertarians should be into sci-fi, implying that only libertarians seek alternatives and that is where and how people find things. I know more people who have their views changed by Hayek or Rothbard, than by Dick, Asimov or Bradbury.
I’ve read 1984, too. And Atlas Shrugged was written in the 50’s. So what? While they’re both great books, they aren’t the path for everyone else, either.
Too often non-libertarians are turned off by preachy I’m-more-pro-liberty-than-you libertarians, who most often love the sounds of their own voices, and showing off their knowledge, more than meeting people where they are and helping them find the path to liberty, IF it’s attractive to them. And we know it isn’t to all.
How about, “I’ve read some interesting alternatives to government and a future we don’t have to fear. Have you ever read….?” Instead of ‘should-ing’ on people. Tactics are everything, in case you’ve missed the last 50+ years of our country.
I can’t believe nobody pointed this out, but arguably every figure on the *real* Mt. Rushmore was either a third-party or independent.
Washington: Independent (debatable, but nominally true at least)
Jefferson: probably the hardest stretch, but only because you can’t call the party he founded “third” when there was no two-party system yet. Also arguably an Independent at some points in his career.
Lincoln: elected as a third party that then became one of the major two. Before that had also been involved with the American (“Know Nothing”) Party.
T. Roosevelt: ran for President as a third party in 1912 (Progressive/”Bull Moose”), made the strongest non-winning third party showing ever in a Pres. election (including defeating the incumbent, who came in a distant third).
That’s not why they’re on Mt. Rushmore, of course (American expansionism is the official reason for each of them), but it’s still true that none of them had two-party-only careers.
BTDT writes, “Don’t should on people.”
Excuse me? Saying people “should” do something implicitly leaves the choice to them, e.g. “You should really have a glass of this red wine, it’s delicious.”
Contrast that with saying “Don’t _______________”, which sounds much more like giving someone an order!
Of course I’m not trying to force anyone to read science fiction, I just think if you want to change the world it makes sense to be interested in the genre of literature that deals with different visions of what the future might look like, for better or for worse.
Obviously not every alternate reality dreamt up by sci-fi authors is desirable to live in! But the dystopian fiction serves a purpose as well. One of the greatest sci-fi novels I’ve ever read was the chilling “1984” by George Orwell. Orwell did the world a great service by writing that book and providing such a vivid warning of totalitarianism. Although he wrote it in 1948, it remains a common touchstone in politics today, with regard to issues like NSA spying, RFID chips, red light cameras, and other forms of government surveillance.
That’s great that you appreciate economics and philosophy. But these disciplines come up in sci-fi too, often in unfamiliar contexts that make people think about things in a new way.
Dear Statchild,
It’s very un-Libertarian to tell people what they should be reading, and hypocritical, considering how some people think you should or shouldn’t be dressing.
I’ll stick to my economics, philosophy, etc. Sci-fi isn’t for everyone. Consider the government in Starship Troopers. No thanks.
Don’t should on people.
Good point. He’s not very well known to the general public outside Alaska though.
Wally Hickel was elected governor of Alaska as the nominee of the Alaska Independence Party in 1990.
pg90,
Good point about Angus King. I don’t quite agree with you about Ron Paul, for reasons stated earlier.
I do think a reasonable case could be made for Johnson, and will probably become stronger if he runs again, especially if he does better the second time. Two decades rather than 25 years (as of last year) would not necessarily put Ron Paul out of contention, since, as you correctly point out, his claim is not in chief part based on his 1988 run.
Also, Bergland would be before Saturn’s cutoff. So using the JTF criteria Paul, Perot, Nader and Johnson by default.
While talk of Jesse Ventura running for president has, at least so far, been all talk every time, I think the fact that he was elected as a Reform Party governor trumps David Bergland’s third plac 0.25% for president. There may be some legitimate room to argue whether Johnson is more significant than Ventura, but I have to say he is not (at least yet), and I like Johnson better.
If the criteria is how successfully they were against the two dominant parties–Lincoln should be on the list. But it also shows what could happen if a minor party displaced a major party
If we’re going to talk about a “third party Rushmore” then I think a reasonable requirement is that the candidate at least placed third or better in the relevant election. Presidential third-place “winners” from 1984-2014:
1984: David Bergland (Libertarian) 0.25%
1988: Ron Paul (Libertarian) 0.47%
1992: Ross Perot (Reform) 18.9%
1996: Ross Perot (Reform) 8.4%
2000: Ralph Nader (Green) 2.74%
2004: Ralph Nader (Ind.) 0.38%
2008: Ralph Nader (Ind.) 0.56%
2012: Gary Johnson (Libertarian) 0.99%
Angus King would be an obvious chart-topper in this regard, but that begs the question if we’re talking about independent politicians or third-party politicians. Not the same thing- somebody can have a successful political career as an independent, while having no involvement with and doing nothing to benefit alternative non-D/R political parties.
If we’re talking third party, in the past 25 years, then I think the obvious answer for #1 is Perot. The Reform Party might have collapsed, but he probably did more than anybody else to increase awareness of alternative politics, to make third-parties a serious topic of mainstream discussion, and before its implosion Reform even elected a Governor (Ventura). Jesse Ventura probably belongs on there as well- I’m not a fan, but you can’t reasonably exclude the only third-party statewide election winner for the specified time period, so #2 for him seems justified. Nader clocks in at #3 pretty easily, for obvious reasons. And as for the present-day (since the relevant period is 1988-2014), I think it’s pretty clear that no national political figure is doing more to build a third party than Gary Johnson. (as for Paul, put me down in the “He did everything relevant, as a Republican and in Republican primary elections. End of debate.” camp. In fact it looks like the cut-off date was set at 1988 for no other reason than to include his frankly irrelevant ’88 Pres. campaign, when if he was only being judged based on that he wouldn’t even crack the top ten.)
If you want to talk about third-party candidates in the present, who are actually still active with a third party and have made significant contributions to such a party, then your choices are pretty much Gary Johnson, or… nobody else. Jill Stein? Virgil Goode? Rosanne Barr? I know everybody loves Harry Browne, and rightfully so, but his impact on broader politics was basically nil. He saved the LP from a death spiral perhaps, and laid a lot of groundwork for the current status of the LP as the indisputably third-largest party in the nation, but nobody in the broader electorate walked away from the ’96 and ’00 elections talking about what a huge impact Browne had made.
Perot, Ventura, Nader, and Johnson would be the obvious examples to focus on if you were writing a history of third-parties in the past two decades.
GWOA
Criteria was since 1988 here.
Who are the most 4 influential 3rd party presidential candidates in us history?
I guess I’ll go with…
1) Teddy Roosevelt
2) Robert La Follette
3) George Wallace
4) Ross Perot
Some others who deserve more historical attention attention include
Martin Van Buren, Free Soil, 1852, 10.1%
George Weaver, Populist Party, 1892, 8.5%
William Wirt, Anti-Masonic Party, 1832, 7.8%
Eugene Debs, Socialist Party, 1912, 6%
John Anderson, 1980, 6.6%
More directly related to the topic of this thread, I think if the carvings on Mount Rushmore did not already exist, and someone proposed such a project today, it would never fly. Can you imagine the hardcore environmentalist reaction to carving up the face of a mountain in that manner?
Personally I don’t have those issues with mountain-carving on a massive scale. Chipping away at massive slabs of granite is not the same order of thing as destroying natural habitat, killing members of endangered species, or polluting the air or water. There is no shortage of mountains in the world, and I think it’s acceptable for humans to turn parts of a few of them into works of art.
That being said, I am not so keen on reproducing the visages of politicians on a gigantic scale, even libertarian ones — especially when they’re still alive, as all the individuals featured on this fictional Rushmore are. There’s an old adage about how when you start seeing dead politicians on your money it’s time to be concerned, and when you start seeing living politicians on your money it’s time to run for the hills. (Whoever came up with that probably did not even contemplate what course of action to advise when the hills themselves have politicians emblazoned on them!)
Besides, as time passes, future generations will inevitably tend to forget — for better and for worse — who the people were whose images are memorialized in art, and what they stood for.
Former LNC member Bette Rose Ryan’s sister Michelle Poague wrote a sci-fi series (the Healing Crystal Trilogy) that I started reading when I was briefly staying with Bette Rose a few years ago, in which Mount Rushmore figures in the lives of future denizens of the area as a religious site, with those denizens having absolutely no notion of the identity or significance of the faces on the mountain.
In an interview — http://www.goodreads.com/videos/30365-michele-poague-discusses-the-borglum-vault-at-mt-rushmore — Michelle makes the point that without some further attempt to preserve ancillary materials, that is likely to be the site’s ultimate fate. (I never finished reading the first book, btw, but what I read was good, and the description of the trilogy sounds of interest to libertarians, so if you’re into sci-fi — or should be, which I think libertarians, as people seeking a better future, should! — I recommend checking it out.)
If I were commissioning a huge libertarian mountain-carving project, I would be more favorably inclined toward having it feature something whose meaning would be more unmistakeable and enduring. Maybe smaller images of a greater number of people doing things that have often traditionally been prohibited or restricted by those in power — carrying weapons, having sex, smoking marijuana, etc.
Somewhat less enduring — it seems safer to bet on the human race surviving for the long term than on the English language doing so in recognizable form — but probably still less transient than mere faces, perhaps a slogan writ large in stone such as “QUESTION AUTHORITY” or “POWER CORRUPTS” or “BREAK BAD LAWS”.
The latter.
They claim they were promised the money by the FEC, then a new person came in to head the FEC or that department of it and decided not to send them the money. That is as much as I know.
It surprises that a government bureaucracy could be capricious, opaque, unfair or all of the above? Or that it wouldn’t do what its rules dictate?
The Overton Window and how it is shifted.
No. Nielson is not big on financial transparency at all.
I would too. But Nielson is not giving them up.
That could be interpreted as discharging the debt, which would make it an illegally large campaign contribution.
He doesn’t think so.
If I understood him correctly, he believes a future campaign would be legally separate and will start with zero debt.
I agree. Hopefully they really did learn a lesson and won’t try that again.
Paulie writes (September 7, 2014 at 2:35 pm) “According to Johnson and Nielsen, what happened is that they submitted exaggerated spending receipts in an attempt to get matching funds, then got double crossed and did not receive all the funds they were promised.”
If this reflects what actually happened, it seems that the decision to take matching funds led to a number of undesirable consequences:
(1) Undermined the libertarian message about not taking government welfare (we already knew that one)
(2) Created a situation where a campaign staffer is owed a lot of money on paper and could potentially demand to be paid if there’s a falling-out, thus giving the staffer leverage over any future Gary Johnson campaign
(3) Ethically compromised Gary Johnson in the eyes of people who won’t be sympathetic to the argument that a dollar in the coffers of an LP campaign is much better than a dollar in the coffers of government (even though that argument is true)
(4) Created a murky situation with the finances of the Gary Johnson campaign that has harmed the transparency that Libertarian supporters deserve to have on how their donations are being spent, and fueled rumors and mistrust
Paulie further writes, “As a result, Ron Nielson is owed a lot of money on paper and is on record as having been paid a lot of money along with various people who worked for him. But Nielson says that in reality neither he nor his employees were paid nearly as much, and while he can’t legally write off the debt he is making no attempts to collect it and continues to work with Johnson.”
Do we know how much they actually were finally paid? I would very much like to see those numbers, as well as a written statement from Ron Nielson that he considers the debt invalid and will make no attempt to collect it. Even if he can’t legally discharge the debt, it seems to me that he could disown it in writing in such firm language that if he were later to renege, his reputation would be ruined.
In the absence of such assurances, this will remain a potential liability hanging over the next Gary Johnson campaign, if there is a next campaign.
And, “As a practical matter the debt is not going to be paid, and Nielson is not sore about it (at least not at Johnson).”
That seems to suggest that Nielson is sore at someone, which begs the question, who? Whom could he logically blame, other than Johnson or himself? As the candidate and the de facto campaign manager, they were the ones running the campaign and making the decisions. Is he sore at Libertarians or the public for not donating more money? At whoever “double crossed” them? Do we know the details of this alleged double-crossing? Frankly I don’t understand the accusation — eligibility for campaign matching funds is determined by statute. Unless the rules were changed or reinterpreted or something in the midst of the campaign, I don’t see how the campaign could have been promised federal money and then had someone renege on that promise. Is it not true that you are either legally eligible for a certain amount of money under the rules, or you are not? If Johnson campaign staff misread or misunderstood the rules, I’d be sympathetic to an explanation blaming it on those rules being perversely complicated (this is government we’re talking about, after all!), but that’s still not the same thing as being double-crossed, and it would ultimately be a mistake for which the campaign would have to bear responsibility, even if we can understand and forgive the error.
Finally, Paulie writes, “And Johnson personally told me he has learned his lesson in regards to matching funds and would rather now take the Harry Browne approach and refuse them on principle. We’ll see.”
The implications of that “we’ll see” are troubling. I hope someone asks Gary Johnson about the issue on the record.
I’m beginning to think that “Vernon” may merit severe countermeasures. As a starter, anyone got the juice with Anonymous to get him thoroughly doxed?
Actually it was the nazi troll. He also posted some comments as me and Andy. See the trash folder and the IPs.
Austin (if that’s you and not someone posing as you),
Please don’t feed the Nazi troll.
Hmm…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Political_party_identification
Paul returned to his private medical practice and managing several business ventures after losing the 1988 election; but by 1996, he was ready to return to politics, this time running on the Republican Party ticket again. He said that he had never read the entire Libertarian platform when he ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, and that “I worked for the Libertarians on my terms, not theirs.”[132] He added that in terms of a political label he preferred to call himself “a constitutionalist. In Congress I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the (Republican) platform.”[132]
It was a lot more than eight issues and yes, it was that bad. I trust readers know how to use search engines if they want the details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters
“Vernon
September 7, 2014 at 7:32 pm
http://88fourteen.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/ron-and-rand-paul-revolution-will-bring-the-final-solution/”
The fact that government internet trolls are spreading lies about Ron and Rand Paul tells me that the Pauls are doing a lot of the right things and that they have the political establishment scared.
The “racist crap” in the newsletters is really exaggerated. It was only like 8 issues out of over 240 plus issues of the newsletters. Also, I don’t think that most of the comments were really even that bad. It sounded like some cranky old guy mouthing off. It is not like the comments proposed any anti-liberty legislation, and then Ron Paul introduced those bills into Congress. The entire Ron Paul “racist newsletter” so called “scandal” is much ado about nothing.
I totally missed where marriage equality advocates have ever used any such argument. Gay marriage equality wasn’t even on the radar when so-called interracial marriage equality was an issue, and the only people I can ever remember bringing up poly marriage in the context of gay marriage equality arguments has been the anti-equality side, by way of a slippery slope argument, although they are more likely to go right into bestiality and pedophilia instead.
Paul was fine with the racist crap going out under his name when it made him money.
He was fine with the racist crap going out with his name when he claimed to have written the racist crap and defended the racist crap’s content in 1996.
It wasn’t until 2007 that he changed stories, denounced the stuff he had been just fine with for years, claimed he hadn’t written it and declined to name who had.
He was either lying when he said he wrote the racist crap or he was lying when he said he didn’t write the racist crap. He was either lying when he claimed to stand behind the racist crap content or he was lying when he denounced, and claimed he opposed, the racist crap. Whatever else Ron Paul may be, there is no getting around the irrefutable fact that Ron Paul is a giant lying sack of shit.
I had it right, it did not need to be fixed. They said they did not know exact amounts of everything they were spending so they estimated on the high end.
One viewpoint some libertarians have is that it’s a good thing to take as much money as possible from the government rather than have the government do other things with the money. YMMV.
Re ping because I forgot to check the “notify me of new comments” box.
Not most of them.
“None of that is in dispute. However, what is in dispute has been explained here many times. According to Johnson and Nielsen, what happened is that they submitted exaggerated spending receipts in an attempt to fraudulently get matching funds, then their con didn’t work.”
There, fixed that for ya.
Why you think “we tried to commit fraud and couldn’t pull it off successfully” reflects better on the Johnson campaign than “we’re idiots who can’t balance our checkbooks” is something I’d be interested in seeing explained.
Yep.
How so?
The first states legalizing recreational marijuana – although, yes, it is taxed and regulated – were also early medical marijuana states. The next few states likely to legalize recreational marijuana are also medical marijuana states. I don’t know when we will start getting around to legalizing cocaine, but I would not be surprised if some of the same states will be among the first ones to do that, too.
And yes, legalization as it stands right now does include taxes. But then again, prohibition is a huge de facto tax as well, except that some of the revenue also goes to protection rackets that are somewhat smaller and less organized than governments. But, government entities make quite a bit of money off it as well.
Paul said: “A newsletter is not the same thing as a newsgroup. The newsletters went out in the first person with Ron Paul’s name on them as if he wrote all the articles. None of the staff writers signed anything.”
Actually, the Ron Paul newsletters did occasionally print by-lines next to the articles. This was what led Ben Swan to the discovery that the so called “racist newsletters” were written by James B. Powell.
On regulate marijuana like wine – I’m not sure that incrementalism is the best strategy, but even if it is, this is just a poor tactic. If we’re haggling over the price of a car, the whole point is to go lower than you would pay, so you have room to move up. If you start by arguing for full legalization, you can compromise at wine. If you start at wine… Here’s a better slogan – regulate marijuana like wine, and wine like marijuana in Colorado.
I see both sides on incrementalism – on the one hand, real people are suffering right now. On the other, each step makes it harder to go further. Plus, it looks a lot like the history of libertarian movements, which always end up stepping on someone – see interracial marriage stepping on gays, gays stepping on polygamy… Each libertarian movement needs to show that it is acceptable by contrasting itself with a group more out of step with middle-class white picket fence values.
>Ron Paul is a libertarian, who correctly points out that the 9th and 10th amendments to the US >Constitution limit the power of the federal government, and reserve issues not specifically >granted to the federal government to the state or to the people.
Yes, that piece of paper says a lot of things. It says that treason is punished by death and that the government can take your stuff as long as it says the magic words “public use” and pays what it deems a fair price. My morality is not based on it.
>Ron Paul has also been a long time advocate of jury nullification, and he has encouraged jurors >to vote not guilty if anyone is being prosecuted for a victimless crime. Gary Johnson has been >silent on the issue of jury nullification, and he chose an anti-jury nullification running mate for >Vice President in James Gray.
Good point. I should have mentioned that while mentioning the other issues with Jim Gray. But, again, is this fictional argument about a fictional mountain about who is more libertarian, or who has a larger impact on third-party politics?
>It should be pointed out that Gary Johnson’s position on abortion is that it should be decided on >at a state level rather than by the federal government, which is the same position as Ron Paul!
Abortion is not the only social issue.
Benton was probably not the best hiring choice. As I said, Paul makes mistakes like everyone else.
As for whether Benton will do prison time I think you may be jumping the gun in coming to that conclusion.
A newsletter is not the same thing as a newsgroup. The newsletters went out in the first person with Ron Paul’s name on them as if he wrote all the articles. None of the staff writers signed anything. Ron Paul also made a lot of money from the newsletters, while your newsgroup is completely free and everyone signs their own emails so there is no confusion as to anyone thinking you write everything that is posted there.
I agree.
Constitutionalist and libertarian are not necessarily the same thing.
Both of their position are nuanced but overall I would say Johnson is more pro-choice than Paul.
Jesse Benton sounds like a guy who sucked up to the Ron Paul family, married one of Ron Paul’s granddaughters, and took great advantage of the situation financially. I’ve never met or spoken to Jesse Benton, but I’ve heard some people close to the Paul camp say that they do not like him.
Jesse Benton is not the only political campaign worker to bilk a campaign for money. The Libertarian Party has had its share over the years, including the Johnson campaign for what I’ve heard.
I’m not going to name any names, but there are some people known in the Libertarian Party who have shall we say, misappropriated funds, or gotten paid way more money than they deserved, etc…
That would be a positive development. We could try to go further afterwards. But prohibition is much worse.
That depends. In some states he revitalized the local LPs.
William Saturn’s criteria only go back to 1988.
It was more than that. Kirkchik republished a second batch with more issues.
I’d go with the description “insane.”
I also doubt Powell wrote all the racist crap, although I don’t doubt he wrote some of it. It seems that Ron Paul was protecting someone important, such as Rockwell, Rothbard or both, that was involved with writing some of it. This was a major blow to Paul’s campaign, so there has to be a more compelling explanation as to why he would not out who wrote it than some obscure writer few people ever heard of. It would have been easy for the Paul campaign to out him with few if any consequences for the campaign or movement. Rockwell or Rothbard would be a much more serious hit to take and it might make some kind of sense that Paul would protect them.
Paul said: “I think he knew. Someone would have told him.”
Whether Ron Paul knew what was being said in every newsletter before it went to print or not, his independent writers had free reign to say whatever they wanted.
I started my own newsgroup and sometimes people say things that I don’t agree with or which could come off as offensive to some. I don’t read every post in my own group, and I have rarely taken down any posts since I’ve have the group (since 2007). The only time I’ve taken down any posts have been if it is off topic spam.
“to the state”
Should read “to the states…”
True.
I think he knew. Someone would have told him.
I don’t have a hard time believing that he didn’t in this case.
You know, all of this Gary Johnson vs. Ron Paul stuff is not something that either Gary Johnson or Ron Paul would likely want to debate. As far as I can tell, Gary Johnson and Ron Paul both have a positive opinion of the other.
Joshua Katz said: “Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative. He believes most social issues should be reserved to the states and, if his statements are any indication (and they had better be) thinks the states should resolve them in rather illibertarian ways. Gary Johnson generally thinks the federal government should resolve them in a libertarian manner. What’s more important to you – federalism or freedom?”
Ron Paul is a libertarian, who correctly points out that the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution limit the power of the federal government, and reserve issues not specifically granted to the federal government to the state or to the people.
Ron Paul has also been a long time advocate of jury nullification, and he has encouraged jurors to vote not guilty if anyone is being prosecuted for a victimless crime. Gary Johnson has been silent on the issue of jury nullification, and he chose an anti-jury nullification running mate for Vice President in James Gray.
It should be pointed out that Gary Johnson’s position on abortion is that it should be decided on at a state level rather than by the federal government, which is the same position as Ron Paul!
Geez everybody… we are talking about a fictional Mount Rushmore and now we are getting into character assassination and who is better than who nonsense. C’mon… get a grip! Grab a vodka shooter and let’s all just get along! It’s ALL good!
Austin Cassidy said: “The cult of Ron Paul has been one of the things that has really held back the Libertarian Party in a big way since 1988 and it looks like 2016 is going to be the same old shit.”
This is a completely absurd statement and has no bearing in reality. Reality is that Ron Paul has done more to advance the liberty movement in this country than anyone else.
“Time to rally around Rand everyone! Send in your pennies!”
People decide on an individual basis to which candidates or causes they will donate money. If people decide that they want to donate money to Rand Paul, that is their decision to make.
So long as we’re arguing about a non-existent mountain: (Mountains out of internet-hills?)
Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative. He believes most social issues should be reserved to the states and, if his statements are any indication (and they had better be) thinks the states should resolve them in rather illibertarian ways. Gary Johnson generally thinks the federal government should resolve them in a libertarian manner. What’s more important to you – federalism or freedom?
At the same time, Johnson is inconsistent on foreign policy and seems about as strong on protecting whistle blowers as Obama (who promised to do so as a candidate, while Johnson did not.) Johnson chose as a running mate a person who defends the police and wants to regulate marijuana like wine.
As far as their role in promoting third parties – I’d say Paul is ahead. He introduced the word ‘libertarian’ to many people, and many of those then found him inconsistent eventually and migrated to the LP. Johnson probably did not bring in a lot of people, although he got more votes than Paul’s 1988 election (with a larger population) but less than Paul did in GOP primaries.
Matching funds and how much you pay your campaign manager do not enter into this question, although I think Johnson had other lessons to learn than “don’t take matching funds because you’ll get screwed” and that’s a rather sad lesson for him to have taken.
Who made a real difference as a third-party member or independent, per-say? Certainly Nader, Perot, and Ventura. For a fourth – John Anderson? Wallace? Sanders?
Austin Cassidy: “Profiting from totally insane newsletters with his name on the masthead, yet he had no clue what was in them.”
The Ron Paul newsletters were not “insane,” as you are describing them. There were only like 8 issues out of over 240 that had the “racist” sounding comments in them, and even in those, there was no call for any racist legislation, and once again, as Ben Swan exposed, the newsletters in question were written by James B. Powell, who was one of a revolving staff of independent writers that was hired for the newsletters.
Paulie,
“I’m with Andy on this one. Ron Paul built the lists that allowed him to get back in Congress, become nationally prominent and raise large amounts of money in part due to his 1988 presidential run.”
To the degree that’s true, it’s also an excellent point against Ron Paul. His whole operation, the political campaigns, PACs, nonprofits and for-profit enterprises that collectively add-up to Ron Paul, Inc. have taken in and mismanaged tens of millions of dollars from libertarians (small l) and Libertarians (big L). The Ron Paul machine has worked to elevate Paul and his family members,
Jesse Benton, Ron Paul’s campaign manager and grandson-in-law, was paid a staggering $600,000 in salary by the Paul campaign and associated organizations during the 2012 cycle. Blasting around the country in chartered jets and sending out frantic emails that the campaign was broke and just needed a few more money bombs to keep TV spots on the air.
http://www.uncoveredpolitics.com/2012/06/08/family-ties-the-biggest-difference-between-gary-johnson-and-ron-paul/
Waste, corruption, racism, incompetence, nepotism… Ron Paul has presided over quit the mess, and yet the answer is always that he didn’t really know about whatever was going on. Profiting from totally insane newsletters with his name on the masthead, yet he had no clue what was in them. His grandson in-law was running around Iowa bribing public officials during the 2012 campaign and Ron had no clue?
The cult of Ron Paul has been one of the things that has really held back the Libertarian Party in a big way since 1988 and it looks like 2016 is going to be the same old shit.
Time to rally around Rand everyone! Send in your pennies!
At least this time, Jesse Benton won’t be able to spend it all on luxury items. I hear the snacks at most prison commissaries are pretty reasonably priced.
Austin Cassidy said: “That’s sort of a bogus reach. In that case, Gary Johnson was elected governor of a state twice as a Libertarian… since he joined the party in the 1980?s and never renounced his membership.”
Gary Johnson was not a Life Member of the Libertarian Party. Ron Paul was and is.
I’m with Andy on this one. Ron Paul built the lists that allowed him to get back in Congress, become nationally prominent and raise large amounts of money in part due to his 1988 presidential run.
Both are somewhat true. Both Ron Paul in his later stint in Congress and Gary Johnson while Governor of NM were in some sense LP members as well as in some sense small l libertarians, but both were elected to their respective offices as Republicans and neither one has ever been elected to anything with a Libertarian ballot label.
I agree. Ron Paul was even the subject of a lot of conversation, most of it positive, when I went to the Green Party national convention in 2008.
I would say about equal. I would not necessarily give either one the edge, both have areas where they are better than the other.
Paul did not say that, Austin did.
“A lot of Ron Paul’s success in getting reelected to Congress and in his 2008 and 2012 runs for the Republican Party’s nomination for President, were precisely because of his 1988 run for President as a Libertarian Party candidate…”
That’s nonsense, he actively tried to distance himself from that campaign and reassure the GOP he was a loyal Republican in his return to Congress and in his presidential campaigns.
“It should be pointed out that everything that Ron Paul has done since he joined the Libertarian Party back in the 1980?s, he has done while being a Lifetime Member of the Libertarian Party.”
That’s sort of a bogus reach. In that case, Gary Johnson was elected governor of a state twice as a Libertarian… since he joined the party in the 1980’s and never renounced his membership.
Austin Cassidy said: ” Probably Ron Paul. More impactful figure for the Libertarian Party?”
I have been involved with the Libertarian Party for over 18 years, and I have spoken to Libertarians all over this country. One question I ask just about every Libertarian whom I meet is how did you get involved in the Libertarian Party. The answer that I get the most is that it was because of a candidate, and the two names that I hear the most are Ron Paul and Harry Browne, with Ron Paul edging out Harry Browne as the name that I hear the most. Ron Paul’s runs for President, even as a Republican, recruited more people into the Libertarian Party than anyone else, and if you factor in small “l” libertarians (as in libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party), the number is far greater.
Gary Johnson has recruited some new Libertarians, but he has a long way to go to catch up to Ron Paul, and to catch up to Harry Browne as well.
It should be pointed out that everything that Ron Paul has done since he joined the Libertarian Party back in the 1980’s, he has done while being a Lifetime Member of the Libertarian Party.
So yes, Ron Paul is most definitely a prominent person in minor party and independent candidate circles.
Johnson would be doing himself a favor by dropping Nielsen. Unfortunately, that won’t happen and the lessons that really needed to be learned will continue to plague him until then. And it’s not about the money.
Austin Cassidy said: “Who is the more pure libertarian… Paul or Johnson? A debate worth having, but Paul’s social conservatism and GOP pandering probably give Johnson a slight edge. Neither is ‘perfectly’ libertarian… but I’m certainly not, either.”
I totally disagree. Ron Paul wins this contest easily.
There is reason to believe that Ron Paul is a closet anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist. I’d heard this for years, and listening to some of the things he’s said since he has been out of office add more credence to this. Also, don’t forget that Ron Paul is a devotee of Murray Rothbard. Has Gary Johnson even read anything by Murray Rothbard?
Austin Cassidy said: ” A debate worth having, but Paul’s social conservatism and GOP pandering probably give Johnson a slight edge.”
Abortion is a debatable issue in libertarian circles, but it should be pointed out that Gary Johnson SUPPORTED banning late term abortions, and he also SUPPORTED parental notification if a minor wanted to get an abortion.
Paul said: ” Austin Cassidy September 7, 2014 at 3:04 pm
‘Ron Paul is a lot more well known and influential than Andre Marrou is.’
Of course, and the reason for that has 99% to do with his time as a Republican congressman and a two-time Republican presidential candidate.”
A lot of Ron Paul’s success in getting reelected to Congress and in his 2008 and 2012 runs for the Republican Party’s nomination for President, were precisely because of his 1988 run for President as a Libertarian Party candidate, as well as his continued association with the Libertarian Party after that. Ron Paul has never disavowed his Life Membership in the Libertarian Party, and he was a speaker at multiple Libertarian Party events in the 1990’s and 2000’s.
“Ron Paul is a lot more well known and influential than Andre Marrou is.”
Of course, and the reason for that has 99% to do with his time as a Republican congressman and a two-time Republican presidential candidate.
What are we debating here?
Who is better known, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson? Ron Paul, obviously.
Who has accomplished more as a minor party candidate, Paul or Johnson? Up for debate, but by most metrics that answer is Johnson.
Who has accomplished more outside of the two major parties… Paul, Johnson, or someone else like Angus King, Bernie Sanders, Walt Hickel? Up for debate, but I’d put my vote on Angus King… a two-term governor and sitting U.S. Senator who was elected as an independent statewide 3 times (twice in landslide victories) in the last 25 years.
Who is the more pure libertarian… Paul or Johnson? A debate worth having, but Paul’s social conservatism and GOP pandering probably give Johnson a slight edge. Neither is “perfectly” libertarian… but I’m certainly not, either. Almost no one is!
More impactful figure for the libertarian philosophy? Probably Ron Paul. More impactful figure for the Libertarian Party? Would give the edge to Johnson for his more successful presidential campaign, the fact he’s still a party member, and the high-likelihood he’s gearing up for another run in 2016.
Lots of people have learned lessons the hard way. You, me, Ron Paul (for example by employing Eric Dondipshit for so many years, or the newsletter writer who wrote the racist crap…)
We’re all human and we all make mistakes. We are faced with imperfect choices and try to make the best of them.
If you expect perfection from anyone – Johnson, Paul, Ventura, or whoever – you will be sorely disappointed.
I do not think that Gary Johnson was the worst candidate, and he would certainly be more deserving of being on a minor party and independent candidate Mount Rushmore than a lot of other minor party or independent candidates would, like say Bob Barr for instance, but if one is going to narrow it down to four, which matches then number of faces on Mount Rushmore, then I do not see Gary Johnson as making the cut, at least at this time.
Maybe Gary Johnson will run as Libertarian or independent in 2016 and we can talk about this again after that.
Paul said: “And Johnson personally told me he has learned his lesson in regards to matching funds and would rather now take the Harry Browne approach and refuse them on principle.”
Johnson seems to “learn his lesson” a lot after the fact. Shouldn’t he have had most of this stuff down BEFORE he ran for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President?
Ron Paul has endorsed jury nullification, and did in fact speak about it over the years while on the campaign trail. I wish that he had talked about it more than he did, but the fact that he publicly talked about it at all was a big accomplishment.
I’ve never even heard of Gary Johnson even talking about jury nullification, and Gary Johnson’s choice for Vice President, Jim Gray, actually came out against jury nullification, and Gray is also known for sucking up the the police by saying things such as that, Libertarians should respect, admire, and thank the police, never mind the fact that the police are among the biggest violators of individual liberty that there is.
None of that is in dispute. However, what is in dispute has been explained here many times. According to Johnson and Nielsen, what happened is that they submitted exaggerated spending receipts in an attempt to get matching funds, then got double crossed and did not receive all the funds they were promised. As a result, Ron Nielson is owed a lot of money on paper and is on record as having been paid a lot of money along with various people who worked for him. But Nielson says that in reality neither he nor his employees were paid nearly as much, and while he can’t legally write off the debt he is making no attempts to collect it and continues to work with Johnson. As a practical matter the debt is not going to be paid, and Nielson is not sore about it (at least not at Johnson). And Johnson personally told me he has learned his lesson in regards to matching funds and would rather now take the Harry Browne approach and refuse them on principle. We’ll see.
Ron Paul received his 1 million plus votes in 2008, and 2 million plus votes in 2012, in the Republican primaries, which is more impressive than receiving 1.2 million in the general election, because a lot more people vote in the general election than in the primaries. Also, a lot of states require primary voters to be people who are registered under the party banner of the party’s primary in which they are voting, whereas in the general election, people can be registered under any banner and vote for whoever they want regardless of what banner they are registered under. Another factor is that the primaries are not all held on the same day, they are staggered over a period of several months, and by the time the later primaries happen, it is more apparent who the winner is going to be, so less people bother voting in the later primaries, whereas in the general election, everyone in the country votes on the same day.
Austin Cassidy said: ” If we’re sticking strictly to a person’s third party resume, Paul’s 1988 running mate is more impressive.
Andre Marrou was the VP nominee in 1988, the Presidential candidate in 1992, and was actually ELECTED AS A LIBERTARIAN to the Alaska State Legislature in 1984.”
Ron Paul is a lot more well known and influential than Andre Marrou is.
Paul said: “That narrative is disputed.”
I do not think that it is in dispute that he ran up a big campaign debt (he entered the race for the LP’s nomination while in debt from the Republican primaries), and that he accepted matching funds from the government (the only Libertarian Party candidate for President who I am aware of having accepted this).
He has become a lot more consistent since then.
Is the question who has advanced libertarianism or who has made a bigger impact in the world of independent/minor party politics? If we’re sticking strictly to a person’s third party resume, Paul’s 1988 running mate is more impressive.
Andre Marrou was the VP nominee in 1988, the Presidential candidate in 1992, and was actually ELECTED AS A LIBERTARIAN to the Alaska State Legislature in 1984.
William Saturn said: “The Authorization of Military Force in Afghanistan was possibly Paul’s only misstep on foreign policy, but Gary Johnson is on record saying the invasion of Afghanistan was justified initially.”
It should be pointed out that Ron Paul did try to get Congress to pass a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, which would have been the constitutional way to deal with the problem, however, this bill never made it through Congress.
Correct.
Correct. But Texas is different from those other states. When you choose a party’s primary ballot, attend their convention or sign their ballot access petition, in the eyes of Texas law you are a registered voter with that party until the next election cycle.
Paul said: “True. But Johnson is younger than Paul, so he has more time left to build his following and make an impact in the future.”
Gary Johnson has a long way to go to catch up to Ron Paul.
I agree.
Paul said: “In Texas you are considered registered with a party when you vote in their primary or attend their convention. That registration lasts until the next time you vote in a political party’s primary or attend their convention.”
Yes, but there are no party check boxes or lines to write in the name of a party on Texas voter registration forms.
Some states that have partisan voter registration allow people who register under no party banner (also known as independent, Decline To State A Political Party, Non-Partisan, or Unenrolled) to chose which party’s ballot they’d like to vote in for the primaries, however, this does not make them a member of or registered voter under the banner of whichever party’s primary ballot that they chose.
True. But Johnson is younger than Paul, so he has more time left to build his following and make an impact in the future. You could say that Rand Paul is continuing Ron Paul’s work, but I think he is a lot less libertarian than Ron Paul. You could also say that Ron Paul is not done yet, but I think it’s widely acknowledged by most people that he is done as a political candidate for any office, although he can continue to be a public speaker, writer, etc.
“So Gary Johnson’s defection to the LP was less high profile than a nonsense press conference where Ron Paul endorsed the idea of third party candidates in 2008?”
Yes. It was much closer to the election itself when everyone was paying attention. I believe it received more mainstream coverage.
“On foreign policy, Johnson has become a lot more consistent while Paul, as good as he has been, did vote in favor of the Afghanistan invasion in Congress.”
The Authorization of Military Force in Afghanistan was possibly Paul’s only misstep on foreign policy, but Gary Johnson is on record saying the invasion of Afghanistan was justified initially. Gary Johnson has sent mixed messages on foreign policy. As a Republican, he talked of militarily supporting Israel. As a Libertarian, he spoke of removing all foreign aid to Israel.
The Daily Caller posted a very interesting article during the campaign discussing Johnson’s inconsistent foreign policy views, particularly regarding genocide intervention:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-gary-johnsons-strange-foreign-policy/
I think that William Saturn’s choices for a minor party and independent candidate Mount Rushmore are pretty good. Maybe he could have gone further in the past and included say John Anderson or George Wallace or whatever other well known minor party or independent candidates there have been, but going from the late 1980’s until today his choices are pretty good.
Austin Cassidy said: “Again, if you’re creating a Libertarian Hall of Fame, I could understand including Paul as a major figure. But he’s a GOP partisan and a bit player in the third party world.”
Ron Paul is actually quite influential in the world of minor parties and independent candidates.
Not exactly.
In Texas you are considered registered with a party when you vote in their primary or attend their convention. That registration lasts until the next time you vote in a political party’s primary or attend their convention. Unlike in many states you can’t legally, say, attend a LP convention and vote in a Republican primary in the same year. And that also extends to signing a ballot access petition, which Texas considers to be “in lieu of” attending a state party convention or holding a primary.
“George Whitfield has the right attitude. We should all be more like him.”
Agreed!
That narrative is disputed.
George Whitfield has the right attitude. We should all be more like him.
William Saturn said: “Republican Party registration notwithstanding.”
Ron Paul is registered to vote in Texas, and Texas does not have partisan voter registration, as in everyone in Texas is officially registered to vote as an independent, or not under the banner of any political party.
I’m pretty sure that Ron Paul actually quit the Republican Party a year or two ago, although he has still endorsed some Republican candidates.
Actually, Gary Johnson was a dues paying LP member in separate stints in the 1980s and 1990s (there is no dispute about it) and never renounced his membership pledge, so technically he has been a non-dues paying member of the LP ever since then.
About a million votes in 2008 and about two million in 2012; not dramatically more than what Johnson got in the general election, although Paul did get a lot more money and media coverage and made it into a lot more debates.
I don’t agree. Both Paul and Johnson were mostly libertarian, but neither was fully consistent with the LP platform. On taxes, the differences were mostly a matter of emphasis, not of policy, with Paul emphasizing a long term plan without going much into the specifics of short term solutions (he has said he would vote for the “fair” tax if it came up for a vote) and Johnson looking more at the practical short term with his belief that something like the “fair” tax would be a good starting point for a conversation about radical tax reform. In the long run, both would cut government and repeal as many taxes as possible.
On foreign policy, Johnson has become a lot more consistent while Paul, as good as he has been, did vote in favor of the Afghanistan invasion in Congress.
On immigration, I would say Johnson is better.
I would also say he is better on gay rights.
But Paul is nevertheless better than most leading Republicans on those issues as well.
I would say they are both a lot better overall than most leading Republicans but neither is a purist Libetarian in the Harry Browne mode.
So Gary Johnson’s defection to the LP was less high profile than a nonsense press conference where Ron Paul endorsed the idea of third party candidates in 2008?
If you’re creating a “Third Party Mount Rushmore” it makes no sense to include a guy whose accomplishments were all as a Republican. Pat Buchanan should be up there, in that case… his Reform Party campaign was about as successful as Paul’s LP campaign… and Buchanan’s GOP presidential bids were more successful than Paul’s were.
Again, if you’re creating a Libertarian Hall of Fame, I could understand including Paul as a major figure. But he’s a GOP partisan and a bit player in the third party world.
I don’t think that is fair.
* Ron Paul has a uniquely libertarian voting record in many terms in Congress, sponsoring many items of libertarian legislation and being the only no vote on many big government votes.
* Ron Paul has been openly against the drug war since at least the 1980s.
* Since returning to the Republicans, Ron Paul has continued to endorse many alt party candidates and has sponsored legislation to make it easier to get on the ballot.
* Ron Paul reportedly left the NSGOP a second time after himself, his family, traveling entourage and pilot were subjected to a thorough search and harassment as a final act of pettiness at the behest of Romney when leaving the Republican national convention in 2012.
* Bob Barr did not have a particularly libertarian record in Congress. He voted yes on the many votes where Ron Paul was the only no vote and distinguished himself by being a particularly rabid drug warrior and introducing extremist drug war legislation.
* While in the LP, Barr continued to run a PAC that raised money for non-libertarian Republicans and praised Plan Colombia and the life’s work of segregationist Jesse Helms.
* After leaving the LP, Barr has not endorsed any non-Republican candidates that I know of. Nor has he been endorsing libertarian-leaning candidates in the Republican Party; he supported Newt Gingrich for the presidential nomination and Mitt Romney in the general election. Nor was the favor returned, as the Republican establishment did not back Barr and he was defeated by a large margin in the primary when he tried to return to Congress. And unlike Ron Paul, Barr was not backed by libertarians from around the country in his attempt to get back in Congress either.
Comparing Gary Johnson to Ron Paul is like comparing a B-list actor to an A-list movie star. Gary Johnson was a good candidate, but Ron Paul did significantly more on a larger stage to introduce young people to libertarianism.
Gary Johnson joined the Libertarian Party in 2011. I think there may be some dispute as to whether he was involved in the party in the early 90’s. If he was, it was for a very brief period before joining the Republican Party for the duration of his governorship and immediate aftermath. Ron Paul joined the Libertarian Party in 1987 and remains a lifetime member, Republican Party registration notwithstanding.
“Former governor defects to Libertarian Party in high-profile move” –
By comparison, Gary Johnson’s defection was not really high-profile. Pat Buchanan’s defection to the Reform Party in 2000 probably received more coverage. Michael Bloomberg may have even received more coverage when he left the Republican Party in 2007. Johnson was a failing Republican presidential candidate who could not garner enough support to be included in the debates when he joined the Libertarian Party. It was very similar to Mike Gravel’s 2008 defection to the Libertarian Party from the Democratic Party or Buddy Roemer’s 2012 defection from the Republican Party.
“Wins 1.275 million popular votes, the most ever for a Libertarian and three-times as many votes as Ron Paul did in 1988.” –
Ron Paul in ’88 won 0.47% of the vote, Gary Johnson in ’12 won 0.99%. Must we really quibble over such small percentages? Ron Paul received millions of votes in Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012 with a message more consistent with the Libertarian Party than Gary Johnson’s 2012 platform which included the FairTax and a flaky foreign policy.
It is far too early to come to any conclusion on the Jesse Benton issue. I have not heard anything directly connecting Paul to any misdeeds.
Andy, who was in charge of distributing the envelopes full of cash to bribe people during the Iowa caucus? I’m sure Ron Paul had no knowledge of that either?
If you want to create a “Libertarian Hall of Fame” or something, then sure you could include Paul. But if we’re talking third party and independent figures, no way.
Ron Paul is a more successful version of Bob Barr.
Meanwhile, Angus King defeated a Republican and Democrat to become governor of Maine in 1994. Re-elected in a landslide in 1998. Leaves office in 2002, comes back in 2012 and again dominates a Republican and Democrat to win a seat in the U.S. Senate.
Jesse Ventura won one election.
Gary Johnson would not have received the 1.2 million and something votes that he got in 2012 had it not been for these factors:
1) Ron Paul’s campaigns in 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 greatly increasing the popularity of libertarianism.
2) Being the highest profile minor party or independent candidate for President, and being on the ballot in more states than any other minor party or independent candidate for President.
3) The internet. It is much easier to reach people in 2012 due to the fact that the internet exists, and more people had easy access to the internet in 2012 than in any election prior to that.
4) The Johnson campaign accepted political welfare, that is matching funds from the government.
A few criticisms of Gary Johnson:
1) Actively campaigned for the Fair Tax, a plan which does nothing to increase individual liberty, and is at best the equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and which may actually be worse than the present tax system. Gary Johnson also avoided debating libertarians who vehemently disagreed with him on this issue.
2) Gary Johnson was Governor of New Mexico for 8 years, and as Governor, he had the power to pardon people, yet during his 8 year tenure as Governor, he only pardoned 128 people. So are we to believe that there were only 128 people in New Mexico during the time that he was Governor who were convicted for victimless crimes, or were wrongfully convicted of a legitimate crime? I highly doubt this. Gary Johnson did come out in favor of legalizing marijuana towards the end of his second term as Governor, yet he did nothing to act on this while Governor. Why did he not pardon everyone in New Mexico who was convicted on a marijuana charge? Why did he not tell the police in New Mexico to stop arresting people for marijuana offenses?
3) Gary Johnson ran up a big campaign debt in the Republican primaries prior to switching to the Libertarian Party, after which he accepted a big political welfare check from the government, and then ran up another big campaign debt. The Johnson campaign also had staffers who made over-inflated salaries (as has been documented on this site).
I could go on, but that’s enough for discussion.
“What can I say? I mean… if you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be. Right?”
Ben Swan has already exposed the fact that the small handful of “racist newsletters” (it was like 8 issues out of over 240 newsletters put out by Ron Paul over a 20 plus year period) were written by a guy by the name of James B. Powell. The Ron Paul newsletters employed a revolving staff of writers, and they were basically given free reign to say whatever they wanted. James B. Powell was the author of the so called “racist newsletters,” and this fact was known by the people who put this story out as a way to smear Ron Paul. I spoke to Ben Swan about this when I met him at the LP National Convention earlier this year. Apparently, James B. Powell writes for the Wall Street Journal or Forbes (or something like that) now. Swan described him as an old crank.
Austin,
On the other hand, Ron Paul has said Gary Johnson is wonderful, reportedly (through mutual acquaintances) voted for him, did in fact vote for and support Chuck Baldwin and Michael Badnarik among others, has spoken at many alt party events, has repeatedly sponsored legislation in congress to make it easier for alt parties to be on the ballot, ran as a Libertarian in 1988 and did represent Libertarian views in that campaign, has brought libertarian ideas and the word libertarian to millions of people who would never have heard or considered these ideas otherwise (which may have been why Johnson ended up running for president and why many of the people that voted for him did so).
Gary Johnson:
1. Former governor defects to Libertarian Party in high-profile move
2. Wins 2012 Libertarian Party nomination for President
3. Wins 1.275 million popular votes, the most ever for a Libertarian and three-times as many votes as Ron Paul did in 1988.
4. Wins 3.55% in New Mexico and 2.92% in Montana and more than 2% in several other states. Ron Paul only topped 2% in one state in 1988.
5. Between the campaign and SuperPAC spending, more money is spent on national television advertising than any other LP campaign since Ed Clark in 1980.
Ron Paul:
1. Registered Republican.
2. Two-time Republican presidential candidate.
3. Actively campaigned against Robert Sarvis in 2013 race for Virginia governor.
4. I remember a quote where he said he never actually read the LP’s platform before the 1988 campaign, it was when he was trying to distance himself from the party.
5. His whole operation is a totally corrupt money-making machine designed to enrich himself, his family members, and keep libertarians tied to the Republican Party. Do you think he will he visit Jesse Benton in jail?
What can I say? I mean… if you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be. Right?
I am proud that I voted for Libertarians Ron Paul for President in 1988, Gary Johnson in 2012, Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000 and look forward to voting for Adrian Wyllie for Governor of Florida in November 2014. Rock steady.
Recognizability is an important element to consider for Mount Rushmore.
Also consider Ron Paul’s third party credentials:
1. 1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee
2. Held a high profile 2008 news conference to convince the public to vote for third party candidates
3. Endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin for president in 2008
4. Received 2.17% of the popular vote in Montana in 2008 as the ballot-listed Constitution Party nominee, a higher percentage in a single state than any other third party candidate in that election
5. Honorary lifetime member of the Libertarian Party, http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lp-monday-message-10-ron-paul-questions
Compare with Gary Johnson:
1. 2012 Libertarian Party presidential nominee
Ed Clark was more than 25 years ago and Harry Browne got significantly fewer votes in his two campaigns combined than Johnson got in his first run. Johnson’s story isn’t fully written yet, either.
Angus King should really be on there instead of either of them. Or Walter Hickel.
How about Harry Browne & Ed Clark, instead of Paul & Ventura?
I would like see Harry Browne on Mt Rushmore
A big difference between Dr. Paul and Bernie Sanders is that the Democrats don’t actively campaign against Sanders and do not work against him within the party. They don’t even run Senate candidates against him. I believe Dr. Paul to be more independent of the GOP than Sanders is the Democrats.
Ron Paul is just basically a Republican who worked to keep people who might have other wise defected in the Republican Party.
Perot, Nader and Ventura are fine… but Paul doesn’t belong on there. He’s actively worked against third party candidates in several recent instances. Bernie Sanders would be a better choice, if you’re limiting it to the past 25 years.
If you want to represent Libertarians, then go for Gary Johnson over Ron Paul. He performed better as a Presidential candidate, pulling three times as many popular votes and double Paul’s percentage. Plus, he’s still in the party and supporting LP candidates.
This is why I despise the Wyllie-Snitker crew. What does OrlandoChris’ comment have to do with Saturn’s Mt Rushmore? Nothing. These people blindly follow Wyllie like a bunch of China-men waving their little red book demanding compliance to the will of their dear leader. I’ve had it with them. I’ve seen them harass people on facebook for daring the vocalize their support for another candidate, claim that Wyllie is the only alternative to the Republicrats (which is a blatant lie, there are 3 NPA candidates also on the ballot), and do little to actually build the county affiliates (I’m fairly certain that 80% of these Wyllie people will disappear after November). It’s annoying and frustrating.
Why vote between 2 known liars? Florida, we are fortunate enough not to
be stuck picking one liar or the other this time. We actually have an
alternative. Take advantage of the opportunity. Adrian Wyllie deserves
my vote. He is a honest average Floridian just as you and I , that is
willing to stand up and do something for the interest of all of us here
in Florida. The other candidates both Republican and Democrat are owned
and controlled by special interest, like puppets and will lie to your
face to gain your vote, then continue the same old agenda that we
complain about year after year. Time to get off this merry-go-round,
election after election, thinking it will be any different. Take a
stand, vote for the candidate that loves this state and is willing to
take time out of his life, effort and money to SERVE the people of
Florida and stop voting for these ‘paid for’ career politicians that are
only out for money and fame and have zero interest in us Floridians.
Even if it’s just for honesty alone, vote for Adrian Wyllie instead of
the other two (Scott/Crist) which are proven liars. The choice is yours
and yours alone, if you want the same old corruption and slap in the
face, go ahead and vote for one of the two puppets (Scott/Crist) OR do
what is right for our (yours and your children’s) future and vote for
Adrian Wyllie. Support him by donating to his campaign, spreading the
word and contribute to the super brochure program which I think is very
powerful. Visit his website today.